IDBillzFan Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 Hillary always has to prove she's the toughest person in the room - so she can follow in the footsteps of Marget Thatcher Hillary is barely fit enough to bring Thatcher a cup of tea.
OCinBuffalo Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) Hillary always has to prove she's the toughest person in the room - so she can follow in the footsteps of Marget Thatcher And, if Hillary actually knew anything about military and strategic matters, she'd know that Western Civilization is hugely dependent on the fact that we stopped making the toughest guy in the room the arbitrary military leader a very long time ago. Strategy, from which all policy should emanate, is more about being clever than "making the hard choices" or being "tough". Having to make hard choices now, usually results from making stupid ones earlier. Anyone who actually comprehends Sun Tzu, and doesn't just have his book prominently displayed in their office for show, knows this. For example, gutting our military, while at the same time acting like a giant candyass, and thus inviting the entire world to dust off, and either ressurect, or at least reconsider, their vast number of "how I can be an a-hole" plans, are the stupid choices Obama is making now, that are going to require the next POTUS to make hard choices later. This results from the dim leftist view that the less soldiers we have, the less "militaristic" we are, and therefore, the less "militaristic" other countries will be. Unmitigated moron Nader shows you that clear as day above. Naders and his ilk will never understand military power is neutral. Somebody is always going to have it. The military art(and it is an art, not a science) is to make sure the right people have it, rather than the wrong people. Wanna be relative? Fine. Make sure the people who are least likely to F up, or purposely abuse it, have it(we make mistakes, but, do you really want to see what China does with it?). Going out of our way to make sure the US isn't the world's dominant military power...is the very best way to ensure the most war and famine possible, and thus ensure the poor get killed by the millions. Once again, this is all merely indicative of the Obama rule: If you want something done right, put the far left in charge of doing the opposite. IF I want millions of poor people, especially non-whites dead? The best way is allow leftists, the poor's supposed great defenders, to be in charge of foreign/military policy. It's almost as stupid as the other dim leftist view of war: The less soldiers we commit, the less will get killed. (Somalia anyone?) Which....basically explains how Viet Nam became Viet Nam. And of course, the over-reaction there was to then send in tons of soldiers, which was the policy, that STILL did not emanate from a coherent strategy. Remember that word? Instead of the normal leftist approach to the imminent failure of their policy: "Quick, throw $ at it", we had is variant, "Quick, throw men at it". Edited June 8, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
B-Man Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) http://pjmedia.com/blog/nader-hillary-tried-to-overcompensate-for-gender-with-shocking-militarism/ Nader: Hillary Tried to ‘Overcompensate’ for Gender with ‘Shocking’ Militarism “I think Hillary is not the Hillary of when she was 30 years old. She made peace with the power structure." I wish those crazy Right- Wing nuts would shu......................oh wait , Ralph Nader........nevermind . . Edited June 8, 2015 by B-Man
reddogblitz Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 http://pjmedia.com/blog/nader-hillary-tried-to-overcompensate-for-gender-with-shocking-militarism/ I was glad to see someome else say what I've been saying. I've read in editorials and blogs and internet comment section posts that a Republican will get us into war but Hillary won't. Horse Hockey. Two things about that: 1. Hillary is the kind of old school feminist who has to prove she's tougher than the guys. 2. Look at her history. Iraq and Libya. It's as plain as day. One could also toss in that Dems got us into Korea and Viet Nam. And Bill Clinton bombed the **** out of Iraq for years and years even though it was not a "War". BO is pretty good at the war game as well.
DC Tom Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 I was glad to see someome else say what I've been saying. I've read in editorials and blogs and internet comment section posts that a Republican will get us into war but Hillary won't. Horse Hockey. Two things about that: 1. Hillary is the kind of old school feminist who has to prove she's tougher than the guys. 2. Look at her history. Iraq and Libya. It's as plain as day. One could also toss in that Dems got us into Korea and Viet Nam. And Bill Clinton bombed the **** out of Iraq for years and years even though it was not a "War". BO is pretty good at the war game as well. Hilary Clinton is...well, a Clinton. She'll follow Bill's foreign policy example (no surprise, considering she helped create it) which was always "Don't commit to anything." Even war. Sure, she might, as President, order bombings and raids and missile strikes and what have you. But commit to a war? Never gonna happen. Calling Hilary "militaristic" is ludicrous. She's not. She's an opportunist. To be anything other than an opportunist, she'd actually have to believe in something.
Keukasmallies Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) What DC Tom said! Seriously, can we really put forth a POTUS resembling the troll under the bridge, can we...? Edited June 9, 2015 by Keukasmallies
reddogblitz Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Hilary Clinton is...well, a Clinton. She'll follow Bill's foreign policy example (no surprise, considering she helped create it) which was always "Don't commit to anything." Even war. Sure, she might, as President, order bombings and raids and missile strikes and what have you. But commit to a war? Never gonna happen. Calling Hilary "militaristic" is ludicrous. She's not. She's an opportunist. To be anything other than an opportunist, she'd actually have to believe in something. I could see that. However I'm not so sure. She did commit to the Iraq war and war in Libya or whatever you want to call it. She and Gates talked Obama into it. The Iraq vote was opportunistic perhaps in that she saw everyone else was gong to vote for it and didn't want to appear weak in the next presidential election after the Iraqis stuffed daisies in our gun barrels and we were greeted as liberators. When the ISIS war hoopla hits a fever pitch, she would probably want to go along with it because that's how she and Bill make theirs decisions, lick you finger and stick it in the air to see which way the winds (of war) are blowing. And she would have to show she is as tough as all the guys like McCain and company.
Azalin Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 However I'm not so sure. She did commit to the Iraq war and war in Libya or whatever you want to call it. She and Gates talked Obama into it. The Iraq vote was opportunistic perhaps in that she saw everyone else was gong to vote for it and didn't want to appear weak in the next presidential election after the Iraqis stuffed daisies in our gun barrels and we were greeted as liberators. Hillary will only commit to something if it's popular. She won't take an official stand - and usually not even offer an opinion - on anything until she can tell which way the wind is blowing.
4merper4mer Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Hillary will only commit to something if it's popular. She won't take an official stand - and usually not even offer an opinion - on anything until she can tell which way the wind is blowing. And then she'll erase all,documentation.
B-Man Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Let down by Obama, some black voters ask: Is it even worth backing Clinton? Nope. You’re just being used. CNN: Hillary Clinton’s Real Libya Problem: .
truth on hold Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Hillary is horrible. Most of the criticisms of her from dem challengers are spot on. If dem primary voters are being rational and objective, or if repubes could field a credible candidate , she'd lose in a landslide. I'm afraid neither one of those things will happen
IDBillzFan Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Let down by Obama, some black voters ask: Is it even worth backing Clinton? Nope. You’re just being used. I know the black voters love hearing the wrinkled, cackling Hillary yell "I don't feel noways tarred! I come too farrrrr!"
Nanker Posted June 10, 2015 Author Posted June 10, 2015 Right. I can envision the **** storm that would ensue in the media if someone like, say Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, or Rand Paul put on the linguistic blackface like this **** did:
3rdnlng Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I know the black voters love hearing the wrinkled, cackling Hillary yell "I don't feel noways tarred! I come too farrrrr!" Are you criticizing "Cankles" appearance and voice? Be careful, you might get smited from on high.
truth on hold Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Bill Clinton will stop paid speeches if Hillary is President http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bill-clinton-stop-paid-speeches-hillary-president-article-1.2253989
keepthefaith Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Bill Clinton will stop paid speeches if Hillary is President http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bill-clinton-stop-paid-speeches-hillary-president-article-1.2253989 Which means he'll speak for free in exchange for other favorable treatment.
IDBillzFan Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Which means he'll speak for free in exchange for other favorable treatment. Or some foundation will fund the Clinton Foundation in exchange for Bill groping some little girls at a fundraiser. Hey..did you hear Rubio had four tickets in the last 27 years? Now THAT'S a story.
B-Man Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 "Airport style security"? Staff should rethink that one...........Chances are the only bomb will be Hillary herself. Hillary Relaunch to Have 'Airport Style Security 'Event Is Standing Only' Security will be tight at Hillary Clinton's re-launch in New York City. It will mimic "airport style security," according to an email from the campaign to people who have registered for the event. "We can't wait to see you on Saturday at the Hillary for America official launch event -- we're so excited that you're going to be a part of this day! Here's some information you'll need ahead of time," reads the email describing Saturday's event. Brutal Carly Fiorina ad: What’s Hillary’s biggest accomplishment as Secretary of State? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc3qtfUkOKs
Dante Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Think about it. The country is run by lawyers. People paid to manipulate, spin and deceive. Paid to say black is white and visa versa. People with no real practical experience in anything really required to run a business or a country. People just smart enough to be dangerous. They are anything but productive. Clintons practice a more advanced type of douchebagary in that they are brazen in the monitization of their positions.
truth on hold Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 "Airport style security"? Staff should rethink that one...........Chances are the only bomb will be Hillary herself. "We can't wait to see you on Saturday at the Hillary for America Hillary official launch event -- we're so excited that you're going to be a part of this day! Here's some information you'll need ahead of time," reads the email describing Saturday's event. Lets be more realistic and call it what it is: anything she gets involved in is Hillary for Hillary, she's too self centered to consider the implications for the country. At least with a Rubio if he uses the banner "Rubio for America", I more or less agree thats his intention, even if I disagree with most of his positions. But with no credible primary challenger, and the Repubes demonizing themselves with unpopular positions, Im afraid this is a cake walk. She'll win based on soft considerations like being the first woman, and on the lesser of 2 evils versus Repube nominee.
Recommended Posts